coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
5.  The applicant was born in 1924 and lives in Podgorica. She is also a paraplegic.
6. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
7. On 4 October 2000 the applicant lodged a property-related claim with the Court of First Instance (Osnovni sud) in Podgorica, seeking declaratory relief. In so doing, she failed to specify the exact value of the claim in question (vrijednost spora). However, on 2 November 2000 she paid court fees of approximately 10 euros (EUR), which corresponded to the value of claims ranging between EUR 50 and EUR 150.
8.  On 29 April 2004, at the end of the main hearing (glavna rasprava) and after additional evidence had been examined, the applicant specified that the value of the claim was EUR 37,000.
9. On the same day the Court of First Instance ruled in favour of the applicant. The judgment stated, inter alia, that the value of the claim was EUR 37,000 and noted that “[an expert witness had assessed that] on 10 October 1984 ... the total value of ... the property ... [at issue had been] ... EUR 72,877.79”.
10. On 22 October 2004 the High Court (Viši sud) in Podgorica quashed that judgment and ordered a re-trial.
11. On 15 June 2005 the applicant, after the main hearing had ended and on the court's request, specified that the value of the claim was EUR 9,900. On the same day the respondent's representative submitted his claim for costs based on the value of the claim being EUR 11,637.
12. On 19 July 2005 the Court of First Instance ruled against the applicant. The judgment specified, inter alia, that the value of the claim was EUR 11,500 and once again referred to the said expert's findings.
13. On 7 April 2006 the High Court upheld that judgment on appeal.
14. On 10 October 2006 the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud) in Podgorica rejected the applicant's appeal on points of law (revizija) as inadmissible, stating that the court fees (sudska taksa) paid by the applicant had indirectly set the value of the claim significantly below the statutory threshold (see Article 382 § 3 at paragraph 19 below).
4.  The applicants were born in 1966, 1947, 1947, 1972 and 1968 respectively and live in the village of Stryama near Plovdiv.
5.  On 24 August 1993 the second, third, fourth and fifth applicants and the son of the second and third applicants, Mr R.R., were caught by the police when attempting to transport stolen fruit. The police officers ordered the second applicant who was driving the cart with the stolen goods to bring the goods to the police station. He did not comply and drove the cart away. The remaining applicants and Mr R.R. went home.
6.  On 27 August 1993 the third and fourth applicants and Mr R.R. were questioned in connection to the theft, admitted to it and stated that the fifth applicant had also participated in the theft. The second applicant was questioned and confessed to the offence on 2 September 1993.
7.  Apparently these questionings were carried within the framework of police investigation (дознание) no. 582/93.
8.  On 20 September 1993 a police officer from the Rakovski district police department proposed to the prosecution authorities to initiate preliminary investigation (предварително производство) for theft against the second, third, fourth and fifth applicants and Mr R.R. He stated in his report that the fifth applicant had not been questioned as he was hiding.
9.  Thereafter the case remained dormant until January 2002.
10.  On 3 January 2002 a witness was questioned and on 27 January an expert opinion was commissioned.
11.  On 29 January 2002 the second, third, fourth and fifth applicants and Mr R.R. were questioned as suspects (уличени) under police investigation no. 582/93 and were charged with theft on the basis of the materials from that police investigation.
12.  In February 2003 the case was brought to the Plovdiv District Court, which on 20 February remitted it back to the prosecution authorities because of procedural breaches.
13.  On an unspecified date thereafter the charges against Mr R.R. were dropped.
14.  On an unspecified date in the end of 2003 or the beginning of 2004 the case was again brought to the District Court.
15.  On 24 November 2004 the second, third, fourth and fifth applicants concluded a plea bargain agreement and were sentenced to three months' imprisonment suspended for a period of three years. On the same day the agreement was approved by the Plovdiv District Court.
16.  The first applicant did not take part in the above events and was never a party to the criminal proceedings.
5.  The applicant was born in 1976. He is currently serving a prison sentence in Wołów prison.
6.  On 23 August 2005 the Kłodzko District Court convicted the applicant of sexual abuse of a minor and sentenced him to five years' imprisonment. The applicant appealed.
7.  On 20 February 2006 the Świdnica Regional Court upheld the first‑instance judgment. On a later unknown date the applicant requested that a legal‑aid lawyer be assigned to the case to prepare a cassation appeal. On 10 April 2006 the court allowed his request. The court's decision was served on the applicant on 20 April 2006.
8.  By a letter to the court dated 11 May 2006 the lawyer refused to prepare a cassation appeal, finding no grounds for it. This letter was subsequently forwarded by the court to the applicant.
9.  On 6 June 2006 the applicant requested the court to assign a new legal‑aid lawyer to the case. In letters to the applicant dated 14 June and 10 July 2006 the court refused to do so. The court referred to the legal-aid lawyer's refusal of 11 May 2006.
10.  Neither in the letter accompanying the lawyer's refusal of 11 May 2005 nor in its later letters the court informed the applicant of his further procedural rights.
11.  On an unknown date in 2005 the applicant instituted criminal proceedings alleging that correspondence sent by him to courts, prosecutors and other authorities had been destroyed by prison officers. On 22 August 2005 the Kłodzko District Prosecutor refused to institute proceedings in the case. On 30 November 2005 the Kłodzko District Court upheld the decision of the Kłodzko District Prosecutor.
12.  On an unknown date in 2006 the applicant, who was serving a prison sentence, filed a request for temporary leave. On 6 July 2006 the Gdańsk District Court dismissed his request. On 15 September 2006 the Gdańsk Regional Court dismissed his appeal as unfounded.
13.  On a later date in 2006 the applicant requested the penitentiary judge to grant him another temporary leave. On 9 October 2006 the judge refused his request. On 21 December 2006 the Gdańsk Regional Court dismissed his appeal as unfounded.
14.  In 2005 the applicant requested that criminal proceedings be instituted against a judge examining his case, alleging that he had destroyed certain documents from his case file. On 6 December 2006 the Kłodzko District Prosecutor refused the request. On 11 February 2008 the Nysa District Court upheld this decision.
15.  In criminal proceedings concerning an assault against the applicant by his fellow-prisoner, on 29 June 2007 the Kwidzyn District Court convicted the accused and sentenced him to 10 months' imprisonment. The court also obliged him to pay the applicant damages in the amount of PLN 8,000.
6.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Dębica.
7.  The applicant was a party to civil proceedings concerning division of co-ownership of a certain plot of land. The proceedings were instituted in 2001. On 12 February 2003 the Lwówek Slaski District Court awarded the plot to a certain M.K. and ordered that a certain amount should be paid to the applicant.
8.  On 9 October 2003 the Jelenia Góra Regional Court partly amended the first‑instance decision increasing the amount awarded to the applicant and dismissed the remainder of his appeal.
9.  On 14 October 2003 the applicant requested to be served with written grounds to that judgment. On 12 December 2003 the court served him with them and the thirty‑day time‑limit for lodging of a cassation appeal started to run.
10.  By a letter of 12 December 2003, served on the court on 18 December 2003, the applicant requested that a legal‑aid lawyer be assigned to the case to prepare a cassation complaint. On the same day the court requested the applicant to submit a statement of his financial situation in order to be able to examine his request.
11.  On 6 January 2004 the Jelenia Góra Regional Court granted the applicant's request for legal aid. On 13 January 2004 the Wałbrzych Bar Association assigned a legal‑aid lawyer to the case.
12.  On 16 and 20 January 2004 the applicant and the lawyer had a telephone conversation. In a letter to the lawyer dated 20 January 2004 the applicant explained in a detailed manner the legal context of the case and the reasons for which he was of the view that a cassation complaint offered prospects of success.
13.  In a letter to the court dated 22 January 2004 the lawyer explained in detail why she saw no grounds on which to prepare a cassation complaint in the applicant's case.
14.  On 3 March 2004 the legal-aid lawyer sent a copy of his opinion to the applicant. It was served on the applicant on 8 March 2004. On 8 March 2004 also the court sent the lawyer's opinion to the applicant.
15.  On 30 August 2007 the applicant requested the Lwówek Slaski District Court to exempt him from costs of making copies of documents in the case-file. On 6 September 2007 the Lwówek Slaski District Court dismissed the applicant's request as unfounded. The court established that the applicant owned property of 4,16 ha and the proceedings had ended in 2003 so he had enough time to collect founds for that purpose. On 12 October 2007 the Jelenia Góra Regional Court dismissed the applicant's interlocutory appeal.
5.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Medoševac.
6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
7. Following the applicant's arrest on 19 June 2002, on 21 May 2003 the District Court of Niš convicted the applicant of forgery and sentenced him to four years and six months in prison.
8.  The Supreme Court of Serbia upheld both the conviction and the sentence on 28 January 2004.
9.  On 19 November 2004 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's further appeal on points of law as unavailable under domestic law in the particular circumstances of the case (odbacio kao nedozvoljen zahtev za ispitivanje zakonitosti pravnosnažne presude).
10.  The applicant served his sentence in the Niš Penitentiary (Kazneno-popravni zavod u Nišu; hereinafter “the prison”).
11.The applicant's letter of 21 May 2004 to the District Court in Niš bore the prison stamp of the same date and registration number 24-6274/2004.
12.  The applicant's first letter of 22 October 2004, sent to the Court on 27 October 2004, also bore the prison stamp dated 25 October 2004 and registration number 24-13588/2004.
13.  In its own letter of 6 December 2004, inter alia, the Court's Registry therefore informed the applicant in Serbian of the said stamp, assuming that he may not have been aware of it.
14.  In his application form submitted on 23 December 2004, the applicant stated that all his mail addressed to State bodies or his family had to be submitted opened to the prison administration, where it was read. He alleged that this was standard practice based on the provisions of the applicable prison regulations. He also submitted that, in accordance with the said practice, all incoming mail was delivered to prisoners opened, stamped and registered. This letter did not bear any prison stamp.
15.  Finally, the above decision of the Supreme Court of 19 November 2004, which was subsequently sent to the applicant, also bore the prison stamp dated 4 February 2005 and registration number 713-1237/2005.
6.  On 14 December 2006 the applicant lodged with the Kłodzko District Court an action against his former employer, concerning his social insurance entitlements.
7.  On 26 April 2007 the Kłodzko District Court dismissed the applicant's action.
8.  On 15 May 2007 the applicant appealed. On 23 October 2007 the Świdnica Regional Court dismissed his appeal.
9.  On 5 November 2007 the applicant was served with the judgment with its written grounds. The court informed him at the same time that he had sixty days as of the date of the service of the judgment (until 5 January 2008) to lodge a cassation appeal.
10.  In his letter of 28 December 2007, received by the court on 31 December 2007, the applicant requested the court to appoint a legal‑aid lawyer for the purposes of lodging a cassation appeal.
11.  On 9 January 2008 the applicant was granted legal aid. In a letter of the same date the court requested the Wałbrzych Regional Bar Association to assign a legal-aid lawyer to the case. This letter was served on the addressee on 14 January 2008. A legal-aid lawyer was assigned to the case on the same day.
12.  In his fax of 25 January 2008 to the Świdnica Regional Court the applicant requested the court to extend the statutory time limit for lodging the cassation appeal in his case. He explained that he had been trying to find a lawyer; to no avail. Finally, he stated that he was “delighted with the legal-aid lawyer assigned to his case, who was superb”.
13.  In a letter of 24 January 2007 to the Świdnica Regional Court, the legal-aid lawyer stated that she had found no points of law on which a cassation appeal in the applicant's case could be based and submitted a legal opinion as to why a cassation appeal did not, in her view, offer any prospects of success. A copy of that letter was sent to the applicant on the next day.
14.  In his letter of 30 January 2008, served on the Świdnica Regional Court on 1 February 2008, the applicant requested that the case be re‑examined by that court. The applicant also applied to have the power of attorney of the defendant enterprise invalidated for the purpose of safeguarding the equality of arms in the proceedings as he intended to present his case to the court without legal representation.
15.  By a letter of 28 February 2008 the President of the Labour Division of the Świdnica Regional Court informed the applicant that there were no grounds on which to envisage a re-examination of the case in which a final and valid judicial decision had been given.
4.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in Košice.
5.  On 13 January 2000 the applicant's former husband lodged an action against the applicant for distribution of matrimonial property.
6.  On 10 June 2004 the Constitutional Court found that the Košice II District Court had violated the applicant's right to a hearing within a reasonable time. It awarded the applicant the equivalent of 876 euros (at that time) as just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage, ordered the District Court to proceed and to reimburse the applicant's legal costs.
7.  On 15 March 2006 it rejected the applicant's fresh complaint about the length of these proceedings as being manifestly ill-founded.
8.  On 8 December 2009 the District Court delivered a judgment in the case. The applicant appealed and the proceedings are still pending.
7.  The applicant was born in 1981.
8.  On 28 January 2004 the Radom Regional Court convicted the applicant of murder and sentenced him to 25 years' imprisonment as a recidivist offender. The applicant appealed. On 14 April 2005 the Lublin Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance judgment. On the same day the applicant's lawyer, who represented him under the legal-aid scheme, requested the court to prepare written grounds for the judgment of the appellate court and stated that this request should be regarded as an announcement of an upcoming cassation appeal against it.
9.  On 25 April 2005 the same lawyer requested the court to release him from the obligation to represent the applicant since the applicant had announced that he had lost confidence in him.
10.  On 19 May 2005 the applicant lodged with the Lublin Court of Appeal a motion to have a new legal-aid lawyer assigned to the case. On 13 June 2005 the court allowed his request, assigned Mr J. Ż. to represent the applicant and ordered the registry to serve the written grounds of the judgment of 14 April 2005 on the lawyer.
11.  The lawyer was served with the grounds on 20 June 2005.
12.  In a letter to the applicant, dated 14 July 2005 the Lublin Court of Appeal informed the applicant that Mr J. Ż. had found no grounds on which to prepare a cassation appeal. The relevant passage of the letter read as follows:
“I inform you that the legal-aid lawyer assigned to prepare a cassation appeal against the ... judgment of 14 April 3005, advocate Mr J. Ż. submitted a letter to the court that he had found no grounds, stipulated in Article 523 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on which to prepare a cassation appeal in the present case. Accordingly, I am obliged to inform you that Article 84 of that Code confers on a defence counsel a right to issue such an opinion and that no regulations are available which would empower the court to compel a legal-aid lawyer to prepare a cassation appeal ... Therefore the Court of appeal will abstain from taking any further measures in the present case, having found that the convicted person's defence rights were properly guaranteed through legal-aid assistance having been granted in the case.”
6.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Rogoźno.
7.  After the applicant's husband had died in April 2002, she instituted proceedings in which she claimed her widow's pension. On 25 September 2002 the Poznań Social Security Board dismissed the applicant's request. On 24 April 2006 the Poznań District Court dismissed her appeal against that decision. On 11 October 2006 the Poznań Regional Court dismissed the applicant's further appeal.
8.  On 13 October 2006 the applicant requested to be served with the written grounds to that judgment. They were served on her on 6 November 2006.
9.  On 27 December 2006 the applicant requested the court to assign a legal-aid lawyer to the case with a view to lodging a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court.
10.  On 12 January 2007 the Poznań Regional Court allowed the applicant's request for legal aid. On 17 January 2007 the Poznań Bar Association assigned a lawyer to the case. On 23 January 2007 the Poznań Regional Court informed the applicant accordingly.
11.  In a letter to the court dated 9 February 2007 the lawyer explained that she saw no grounds on which to prepare a cassation complaint in the applicant's case.
12.  On 20 March 2007 the court informed the applicant about the lawyer's refusal and that the time‑limit for the lodging of a cassation complaint had expired on 6 January 2007. The court's letter was served on the applicant on 23 March 2007.
4.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Plovdiv.
5.  On 11 September 1993 criminal proceedings were opened against an unknown perpetrator for a theft of objects of considerable value from a private apartment, committed the same day.
6.  On 22 September 1993 the applicant was questioned in connection to the theft and admitted to having taken part in its commission.
7.  On 20 October 1993 a police report in connection to the theft was prepared. The applicant was mentioned as one of the perpetrators. On 26 October 1993 the case was sent to the Plovdiv regional public prosecutor’s office.
8.  Apparently thereafter the case remained dormant.
9.  On 11 December 1998 the preliminary investigation (предварително производство) was transformed into a police investigation (дознание). Thereafter, until January 2002 the case again remained dormant.
10.  A number of investigative actions were carried out between January and August 2002.
11.  On 6 August 2002 the applicant was charged with the theft and was questioned.
12.  A number of investigative actions were carried out between August 2002 and February 2003.
13.  In March 2003 the applicant’s case was brought before the Plovdiv District Court. The first hearing was held on 8 October 2003 and was adjourned upon the applicant’s request.
14.  On 7 April 2004 the District Court approved a plea bargain agreement and the applicant was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment.
4.  The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Košice.
5.  On 15 March 2002 the applicant lodged an action against her former husband, the municipality of Košice and a third party, challenging the validity of two contracts by which the applicant's former husband had firstly bought an apartment and then sold it to a third party.
6.  On 26 October 2005 the Constitutional Court declared the applicant's complaint about the length of these proceedings inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded.
7.  On 12 January 2009 she lodged a fresh constitutional complaint.
8.  On 17 March 2009 the Košice II District Court found against the applicant. The applicant appealed.
9.  On 21 October 2009 the Constitutional Court found a violation of the applicant's right to a hearing within a reasonable time. Having regard to the overall length of proceedings, it awarded the applicant 1,000 euros (EUR) as just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage and ordered the District Court to reimburse the applicant's legal costs. It did not order the District Court to proceed with the case on the ground that that court had already adopted a decision on merits.
10.  On 4 March 2010 the Košice Regional Court quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case to the first-instance court.
11.  The District Court adopted a judgment in the applicant's favour on 2 July 2010. One of the defendants appealed and the proceedings are still pending.
4.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Bratislava.
5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
6.  On 15 May 1991 the applicant and other plaintiffs filed an action for restitution of real property to the Bratislava V District Court.
7.  On 11 January 1994 the District Court dismissed the action. On 12 October 1994 the Bratislava City Court remitted the case to the District Court following an appeal by the applicant.
8.  On 23 June 1995 the District Court again dismissed the action. On 14 December 1995 the court of appeal upheld the relevant part of the first‑instance judgment. On 20 March 1997 the Supreme Court quashed the court of appeal's judgment. The case was remitted to the District Court.
9.  In its third judgment given on 18 February 1999 the District Court decided in the applicant's favour. On 17 March 2000 the Bratislava Regional Court quashed that judgment in part. In December 2000 the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on points of law filed by other plaintiff.
10.  On 5 March 2003 the District Court granted the action. On 30 March 2004 the Bratislava Regional Court quashed the first-instance judgment in part and remitted it to the first-instance court; it dismissed the remainder of the claim.
11.  On 29 April 2005 the Supreme Court quashed a part of the court of appeal's judgment a remitted the case to it.
12.  On 30 June 2005 the Bratislava Regional Court quashed the relevant part of the first-instance judgment and discontinued the proceedings. The decision was served on the parties on 30 August 2005.
13.  On 18 June 2003 the Constitutional Court found that the Bratislava V District Court had violated the applicant's right under Article 48 § 2 of the Constitution to a hearing without unjustified delay. The facts of the case were complex and the applicant by his conduct had not contributed to the length of the proceedings. The Constitutional Court awarded 70,000 Slovakian korunas (SKK)[1] to the applicant in just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It also ordered the District Court to reimburse the applicant's legal costs.